I don't need to do anything, Radin's statistical failings are well known, as for Bem, one person's ability to replicate their own result is not surprising, the question is whether anyone else can - let's just say that hasn't gone well for him.
The whole issue with this is that you don't view this in a proper scientific manner but as two sides, "us" versus "them". Proponents versus skeptics. Anyone in the middle, attempting to be objective instantly becomes a skeptic in your eyes the second they actively criticise the 'evidence'.
And herein lies the problem - you have to be prepared to accept that maybe there are some people (that might even like psi to be real) when analysing or attempting to replicate do so from an objective viewpoint, but fail to get the same result or spot significant flaws. You unequivocally don't, instead claiming suppression and lack of knowledge on the part of scientists due to this 'skeptic conspiracy'. Frankly that is immensely disrespectful of the vast majority of people who simply want to get to the truth, whatever it may be - and funnily enough whose careers would benefit hugely from being involved in such a discovery rather than having to report a negative result.
Excellent post; I for one would bloody love it if ghosts existed, or people could read minds, or move objects without touching them, or kill someone by pointing a bit of wood in their direction while yelling "Avada kedavra!". It would imbue the world with a level of imagination and excitement and wonder that I haven't felt since I was a child (not that scientific reality isn't a bizarre and fascinating realm, it is - in many ways, truth really is stranger than fiction). But the reason I don't accept these things is because there just isn't the evidence for them and until there is, it'd be dishonest of me to include such phenomena in any model or description of reality I might build.
Excellent post; I for one would bloody love it if ghosts existed, or people could read minds, or move objects without touching them, or kill someone by pointing a bit of wood in their direction while yelling "Avada kedavra!". It would imbue the world with a level of imagination and excitement and wonder that I haven't felt since I was a child (not that scientific reality isn't a bizarre and fascinating realm, it is - in many ways, truth really is stranger than fiction). But the reason I don't accept these things is because there just isn't the evidence for them and until there is, it'd be dishonest of me to include such phenomena in any model or description of reality I might build.
I don't know about reading minds but Bem established that he could elicit precognition.
That's impressive.
Excellent post; I for one would bloody love it if ghosts existed, or people could read minds, or move objects without touching them, or kill someone by pointing a bit of wood in their direction while yelling "Avada kedavra!". It would imbue the world with a level of imagination and excitement and wonder that I haven't felt since I was a child (not that scientific reality isn't a bizarre and fascinating realm, it is - in many ways, truth really is stranger than fiction). But the reason I don't accept these things is because there just isn't the evidence for them and until there is, it'd be dishonest of me to include such phenomena in any model or description of reality I might build.
Small wonder such things are either non existent, uncommon or unreliable.
I don't know about reading minds but Bem established that he could elicit precognition.
That's impressive.
It would be if he'd actually done it. Tell me again (by which I mean for the first time), what was it you think was flawed about all those attempts to replicate his methods of eliciting precognition that came up negative?
I've had some experiences that I could interpret as being some sort of paranormal/supernatural activity and have wanted to believe at various times that they were that (some recently which I could connect with my partner's current serious illness). But the explanations are much more likely to be mundane - to do with stress or wishful thinking misinterpretations etc - whether I like it or not. But, often, there seems to be an assumption that a person must be against what believers believe for some sort of hostile/sinister, sectarian motive, rather than simply not having any reason to be convinced, due to all the other much more likely explanations.
I don't think it's about being hostile to someone who doesn't share your beliefs. I'm secure enough that I believe what I choose, accept some people will disagree, and that -as things stand- nobody has definitive answers.
Disagreement isn't the problem but the aggressive, mockery, and shouting down of posters who have a belief in it. If half the posters on here had responded with, 'sorry I'm not convinced, this thread wouldn't have grown so mutant.
No I don't think every skeptic is part of a sinister cabal but I do think that certain elemnts within organised skepticism have an agenda to supress and misrepresent.
Sorry I'm not convinced is fine, but sorry you're all feeble minded, the research is conducted by charlatans and frauds needs some sort of validation or else it's just mudslinging.
It would be if he'd actually done it. Tell me again (by which I mean for the first time), what was it you think was flawed about all those attempts to replicate his methods of eliciting precognition that came up negative?
If you know about the fine points of methodology that you claimed you do, although I'm not sure of that from your posts, you would already know that there are various reasons that a replication can fail, possibly a failure on the part of the experimenter, and doesn't render the original experiment flawed.
To add: here is an article on failed replications:
There were also incidents of skeptics using the file drawer effect. Blackmore for example misreported the years of her data collection and also left out positive results.
Thanks, another interesting looking paper which I've bookmarked. However, why do you say it's radin's reply? It seems to be by Storm, Tressoldi and Di Risio.
I'd have thought sceptics could investigate whether the file drawer effect had influenced results, but in what sense could they "use" it? I've no idea about whether Blackmore did those things. I've never seen it mentioned about her before now.
Thanks, another interesting looking paper which I've bookmarked. However, why do you say it's radin's reply? It seems to be by Storm, Tressoldi and Di Risio.
I'd have thought sceptics could investigate whether the file drawer effect had influenced results, but in what sense could they "use" it? I've no idea about whether Blackmore did those things. I've never seen it mentioned about her before now.
That's how it is listed on radin.com. It answers complaints.about the percentages.
The Blackmore incident is in Steve Volk's book. In other words she either erroneously or otherwise left out positive experiments.
He was apparently fond of reporting to the media that he had disproven psi work when he hadn't.
The conclusion is hilarious:
There is a pattern here. Every time something interesting that is psi related happens, particularly if it is newsworthy, Wiseman inserts himself into the discussion and provides a trivial debunking to ensure that the news is shrouded in conflicting accounts that prevent the public and the scientific community from being persuaded by the evidence. This is a pattern that has stayed consistent for over ten years and has shown no evidence of changing. Wiseman is aware of all the criticism he has received over the years, yet his approach hasn’t varied. The only conclusion that one can draw from this is that these are not merely mistakes of incompetence, but rather they must be intentional attempts to deceive.
Of course, this brings up the question: Why would he resort to such measures if he was so sure that psi didn’t exist? The answer of course, is that he knows that it does, but he has more to personally gain through this debunking. In my opinion, his whole career appears to be as shallow as a rain puddle.
So one man is somehow influencing the entire scientific community? And this single-handed suppression of what would be one of the greatest breakthroughs in scientific history is occurring because one guy at the University of Hertfordshire is a bit vain and greedy?
We're well and truly into Conspiracy Theorist territory with that level of paranoid delusion.
So one man is somehow influencing the entire scientific community? And this single-handed suppression of what would be one of the greatest breakthroughs in scientific history is occurring because one guy at the University of Hertfordshire is a bit vain and greedy?
We're well and truly into Conspiracy Theorist territory with that level of paranoid delusion.
If you look at the article yes.
It says he was able to do a lot of damage at the time because again, people were uniformed.
Wiseman had a big influence on the scientific community and went to the media who lapped it up.
And he wasn't the only one doing it.
You aren't convincing me with the CT stuff so you may as well give it a rest.
It says he was able to do a lot of damage at the time because again, people were uniformed.
Wiseman had a big influence on the scientific community and went to the media who lapped it up.
And he wasn't the only one doing it.
You aren't convincing me with the CT stuff so you may as well give it a rest.
Tell me, has Richard Wiseman ever faced disciplinary procedures at the University of Hertfordshire or any other institution for any of the gross misconduct of which he gets accused by angry psi proponents? Or is his villainy so great that he manages to evade censure using his own psychic abilities? That's why he's so keen to suppress the troof; Wiseman the psychic megalomaniac doesn't want to share the powah!
I see you're avoiding the awkward question of whether there has been disciplinary action against Richard Wiseman, bolly. Could it be that he has done nothing wrong?
Yes, hang on why I go back to the beginning of the thread and check for the earliest signs of provocation and accusations by any particular group. I feel some analysis is required if only for my own satisfaction. ;-)
What a shame. People are responsible for only what they say, not what someone on their 'side' (for shorthand) says.
Provocation etc is not caused by being a non-believer or a believer so any such analysis seems to be part of the problem. You should take complaints up with or form an opinion of the person, not negatively characterise their 'group'.
What a shame. People are responsible for only what they say, not what someone on their 'side' (for shorthand) says.
Provocation etc is not caused by being a non-believer or a believer so any such analysis seems to be part of the problem. You should take complaints up with or form an opinion of the person, not negatively characterise their 'group'.
Indeed. It seems awfully closed-minded to decide you're going to be on a particular 'side'.
Tell me, has Richard Wiseman ever faced disciplinary procedures at the University of Hertfordshire or any other institution for any of the gross misconduct of which he gets accused by angry psi proponents? Or is his villainy so great that he manages to evade censure using his own psychic abilities? That's why he's so keen to suppress the troof; Wiseman the psychic megalomaniac doesn't want to share the powah!
That's right. He was trying to suppress the truth.
Fortunately even some skeptic organization booted him out.
Fully accountable? I don't know what you mean by that.
Wiseman conducts research in an official capacity at a university. If he is knowlingly and demonstrably being dishonest, particularly about other academics, a formal complaint could be lodged and he would be held to account by his employers.
Wiseman conducts research in an official capacity at a university. If he is knowlingly and demonstrably being dishonest, particularly about other academics, a formal complaint could be lodged and he would be held to account by his employers.
The same goes for Blackmore.
Or does the conspiracy go all the way to the top?
Blackmore retired in a befuddled state.
Wiseman got a scathing review and if you look at the link was criticized for his lack of meeting scientific standards.
Also made a fool of himself over the Bem study.
So I guess it is a good question why anyone would continue to employ such an idiot.
Wiseman got a scathing review and if you look at the link was criticized for his lack of meeting scientific standards.
Also made a fool of himself over the Bem study.
Anyone can criticise. However, you don't acknowledge that Wiseman is accountable. Have any of these criticisms ever formed the basis of an official complaint and investigation into Wiseman's conduct by his employers.? Yes or no, bolly. YES or NO?!
Anyone can criticise. However, you don't acknowledge that Wiseman is accountable. Have any of these criticisms ever formed the basis of an official complaint and investigation into Wiseman's conduct by his employers.? Yes or no, bolly. YES or NO?!
I agree with your question. As I said above it is a wonder academia continues to employ such an embarrassment to science.
He didn't even know what method Bem had used, lol. He is so stupid.
Comments
Excellent post; I for one would bloody love it if ghosts existed, or people could read minds, or move objects without touching them, or kill someone by pointing a bit of wood in their direction while yelling "Avada kedavra!". It would imbue the world with a level of imagination and excitement and wonder that I haven't felt since I was a child (not that scientific reality isn't a bizarre and fascinating realm, it is - in many ways, truth really is stranger than fiction). But the reason I don't accept these things is because there just isn't the evidence for them and until there is, it'd be dishonest of me to include such phenomena in any model or description of reality I might build.
I don't know about reading minds but Bem established that he could elicit precognition.
That's impressive.
Small wonder such things are either non existent, uncommon or unreliable.
It would be if he'd actually done it. Tell me again (by which I mean for the first time), what was it you think was flawed about all those attempts to replicate his methods of eliciting precognition that came up negative?
I don't think it's about being hostile to someone who doesn't share your beliefs. I'm secure enough that I believe what I choose, accept some people will disagree, and that -as things stand- nobody has definitive answers.
Disagreement isn't the problem but the aggressive, mockery, and shouting down of posters who have a belief in it. If half the posters on here had responded with, 'sorry I'm not convinced, this thread wouldn't have grown so mutant.
No I don't think every skeptic is part of a sinister cabal but I do think that certain elemnts within organised skepticism have an agenda to supress and misrepresent.
Sorry I'm not convinced is fine, but sorry you're all feeble minded, the research is conducted by charlatans and frauds needs some sort of validation or else it's just mudslinging.
If you know about the fine points of methodology that you claimed you do, although I'm not sure of that from your posts, you would already know that there are various reasons that a replication can fail, possibly a failure on the part of the experimenter, and doesn't render the original experiment flawed.
To add: here is an article on failed replications:
http://wjh.harvard.edu/~jmitchel/writing/failed_science.htm
Thanks, another interesting looking paper which I've bookmarked. However, why do you say it's radin's reply? It seems to be by Storm, Tressoldi and Di Risio.
I'd have thought sceptics could investigate whether the file drawer effect had influenced results, but in what sense could they "use" it? I've no idea about whether Blackmore did those things. I've never seen it mentioned about her before now.
That's how it is listed on radin.com. It answers complaints.about the percentages.
The Blackmore incident is in Steve Volk's book. In other words she either erroneously or otherwise left out positive experiments.
http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/richard-wiseman-a-study-in-modern-psi-skepticism/
He was apparently fond of reporting to the media that he had disproven psi work when he hadn't.
So one man is somehow influencing the entire scientific community? And this single-handed suppression of what would be one of the greatest breakthroughs in scientific history is occurring because one guy at the University of Hertfordshire is a bit vain and greedy?
We're well and truly into Conspiracy Theorist territory with that level of paranoid delusion.
If you look at the article yes.
It says he was able to do a lot of damage at the time because again, people were uniformed.
Wiseman had a big influence on the scientific community and went to the media who lapped it up.
And he wasn't the only one doing it.
You aren't convincing me with the CT stuff so you may as well give it a rest.
Yup .
Only because you don't have a rational defense to the bad data.
I don't know why anyone would excuse these people who did damage to others' careers ( like Sheldrakes) while criticizing Sally.
Wiseman is not a nice person.
Booooooo....
Provocation etc is not caused by being a non-believer or a believer so any such analysis seems to be part of the problem. You should take complaints up with or form an opinion of the person, not negatively characterise their 'group'.
That's right. He was trying to suppress the truth.
Fortunately even some skeptic organization booted him out.
Has Wiseman ever been disciplined for misconduct by the University of Hertfordshire or any other academic institution?
For that matter, what formal measures were taken against Blackmore? You seem to ignore the fact that these people are fully accountable, bolly.
Fully accountable? I don't know what you mean by that.
The same goes for Blackmore.
Or does the conspiracy go all the way to the top?
Blackmore retired in a befuddled state.
Wiseman got a scathing review and if you look at the link was criticized for his lack of meeting scientific standards.
Also made a fool of himself over the Bem study.
So I guess it is a good question why anyone would continue to employ such an idiot.
I agree with your question. As I said above it is a wonder academia continues to employ such an embarrassment to science.
He didn't even know what method Bem had used, lol. He is so stupid.